Talk:Western African Ebola epidemic

Possibly successful Ebola treatment with Lamivudine

Definitely something to watch for developments, cnn has reported that a doctor has successfully treated 13 out of 15 ebola patients that were given Lamivudine Blacknail (talk) 03:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, getting a pile of headlines at the moment. I'm sure there are 100 faith healers & witch doctors who are also claiming fantastic results. All sorts of reasons why it does not belong here - not good quality evidence being the principle one. Robertpedley (talk) 10:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I see that Meodipt has added it under "Experimental Treatments". There's also been an announcement by a hospital in Thailand that they have invented a cure[1] but I don't think anyone is taking that seriously either. Robertpedley (talk) 14:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why you feel that this is not a valid "experimental treatment"? Surely the use of an antiviral drug that is already approved for treatment of one viral infection, to treat patients affected by a different virus for which there is no currently accepted treatment, is the very definition of an experimental, "off-label" use of the drug? After all its not like this is some crazy black magic treatment with no logical rationale behind it. If Ebola patients started turning up in droves at hospitals in any Western country you can be sure they would throw at it every antiviral they had on the shelf that might have a chance of success, to see if any of them worked. That is exactly what this doctor has done here, just as he is working in remote West Africa he only had two antiviral drugs at hand, and while acyclovir didn't work it seemed like lamivudine possibly might. This seems every bit as notable and relevant to include as drugs like favipiravir which has only been tested against Ebola in mice, and its only relevance is that Japan has offered to supply favipiravir in case anyone might hypothetically want to try using it in Ebola infected humans at some future stage. Lamivudine on the other hand is already being used in humans right now, and indeed seems to have been given to a lot more people than other experimental treatments like ZMapp. Whether lamivudine is actually effective at treating Ebola is not really relevant to the issue of whether its use is sufficiently notable and encyclopaedic to warrant mentioning in the Wikipedia article, and I would argue that it meets both those criteria. While it may be just this one maverick doctor using lamivudine at this stage, it has been widely reported in the media, which is usually a key criteria for notability here. This section is for "Experimental treatments", not merely "Experimental treatments endorsed by the WHO" or "Experimental treatments being developed by Western pharmaceutical companies", and if this experimental treatment meets the inclusion criteria, it should be included in the article. Meodipt (talk) 01:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Probably worth noting this drug, BCX4430 which is currently in trials funded by NIAID against Ebola and Marburg viruses, and has shown good results in animal models. BCX4430 is you will note, structurally similar to lamivudine and I believe has the same mechanism of action. So it is quite reasonable to suggest lamivudine as a possible treatment, and this article cites NIAID as saying they will be prepared to carry out studies of lamivudine against Ebola as well. I take it that once these studies have been started you will then feel lamivudine is a valid experimental treatment and worthy of being listed in the article, alongside various vaccines and other drugs that are still in pre-clinical studies or Phase I trials at best? Meodipt (talk) 06:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Meodipt - you could use the word "speculative" maybe, but not "experimental" because there is no experiment here. So far as I know, these 15 cases were not confirmed EVD patients. The alleged outcome - 13 out of 15 - is not independently verified and does not qualify for statistical significance. Specialised virologists are not jumping with joy at the news (see final paragraphs here --> [2]) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertpedley (talk • contribs) 10:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi RP Your exception to the anecdotal report of a lamivudine treatment experiment reported with only historical reference to a case fatality rate is excessive. The point is its conduct, and its media reportage from a setting where the case definitions and controls desired in scientific conduct and reportage are lacking is not invalidating of the hypothesis. The reportage here is as relevant as reportage of any other treatment to date. The claims made are not conclusive of efficacy, it is just a media report of a case series worth noting with a statement of its several limitations, just like every other hopeful or 'promising' report with other limitations. Your sarcastic statements "...virologists are not jumping with joy" and "I'm sure there are 100 faith healers & witch doctors..." above are inappropriate. Speak to the issue, and allow due process. BCameron54 11:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

BCameron54 - Directly addressing the issue, this is Anecdotal_evidence, it does not match the criteria of an experiment. I am not aware of any reputable source recommending or evaluating this treatment, so it does not merit inclusion.Robertpedley (talk) 10:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The fact that this is merely anecdotal evidence does not mean that it is not eligible for inclusion in the article. This attempted treatment is notable and has been reported by multiple reliable sources, and this is in itself sufficient grounds that it should be listed. I will emphasise again, it is not relevant for inclusion whether lamivudine actually is effective for treatment of Ebola, and neither is the question of whether a suitably rigorous experimental procedure was followed. I doubt virologists anywhere will be "jumping with joy" until this outbreak is well and truly dealt with, but the several prominent virologists that have been interviewed about this story in various media articles (including the one you cited), have all described these results as "promising" but stated that they will need to be verified with larger groups of patients under more controlled conditions before they can be considered reliable. This may not be an endorsement of the treatment, but it is hardly a scathing rejection of it either. Anyway the point is moot now, as this article cites NIH as saying that they are now investigating lamivudine against Ebola in test tube studies, which means it absolutely meets the criteria you are saying should be required. Unless you don't feel that NIH are a suitably reputable source? Meodipt (talk) 00:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

MeodiptYour article actually says "I can't say it's a good idea or bad idea....It's one of those things where you're in a situation where you have no therapy, so you look for things that might be available....National Institutes of Health researchers have tested lamivudine's reaction to Ebola in test tubes. There was no response; but .... researchers will adjust some levels and try it again to see if there's even slight activity against Ebola. If there is ..... NIH would consider going to the trial stage." Sorry, it does not qualify to be described under "experimental treatments" until it progresses to the trial stage. There's a clear line, and lamivudine does not cross it - yet. In the context of the epidemic, what is relevant is those treatments which are being used or may become available in the near future. Other, more speculative therapies can possibly be included in the pages about the virus or the disease, but I don't think they are relevant to this topic yet (I saw ouabain mentioned a few weeks back). I can see you've added BCX4430 to the article, based on a couple of references which are now 6 months old. I don't want to get into personal war about this so I invite other editors to comment on this.Robertpedley (talk) 12:04, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm surprised that there are questions about including this drug in our Experimental treatments section. While this is clearly not the time to insist on rigorous studies and proof, a 16 patient "trial" done only a few days ago does not seem adequate to place this drug in our experimental section, IMO. However I don't consider my personal opinion worth much since it is only based on what seems to make sense to me, rather than knowledge about the issue. I've asked user:WhatamIdoing to take a look at this discussion and I will go along with what she has to say. Gandydancer (talk) 13:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The point is though, that lamivudine is being used in humans right now, while drugs like ZMapp and BCX4430 won't be ready until mid-2015 or early 2016. I must concede after doing some more reading that lamivudine does seem less likely to be the magic bullet it has been claimed to be by the media hype, but if lamivudine treatment for Ebola is ineffective and dangerous then surely this in itself is notable and worthy of comment? Having people falsely believe something to be effective when it is actually not can lead to all sorts of bad outcomes, for instance healthcare workers might take lamivudine prophylactically in the misguided belief that it will protect them from Ebola infection when it actually won't. However RP does make a good point, maybe it would be more appropriate to list more speculative treatments like this under the Ebolavirus or Ebola virus disease page rather than this page about the outbreak, but it does seem more in context to put it on the page about the West African epidemic when it is a treatment being trialled and championed by a West African doctor working in the middle of the outbreak. Anyway yes comment from other editors would definitely be helpful here. Meodipt (talk) 19:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Graphs that relate numbers to the populations of the countries

Rate of Ebola cases and death based on the total population of the countries (or world for Totals), excluding Congo. Data taken from Wikipedia on September 27th. Based on populations: World 7,176,023,055, Guinea 10,628,972, Liberia 4,092,310, Sierra Leone 6,190,280, Nigeria 174,507,539, Senegal 13567338. Order and colouring of contries based on the diagram uploaded by user "The Anome"

Rate of Ebola cases and death based on the total population of the countries (or world for Totals), excluding Congo. Data taken from Wikipedia on September 27th. Based on populations: World 7,176,023,055, Guinea 10,628,972, Liberia 4,092,310, Sierra Leone 6,190,280, Nigeria 174,507,539, Senegal 13567338. Order and colouring of contries based on the diagram uploaded by user "The Anome"

I added two graphs that show the rate of cases and deaths based on the total population of the affected countries. Again both linear and logharithmic. The diagramms show more clearly that in the most affected countries, now nearly 1 out of 1000 people are infected, at least based on the official numbers. I took the numbers from the table in this article and the population number from the wikipedia articles of the affected countries. I kept colouring and ordering of the data lines like in the graphs the user The Anome made. I think this graphs are helpful to visualize how much affected the countries are, and by doing the calculation in the graph, the reader does not have to do it by himself. --Malanoqa (talk) 11:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Presenting it as a rate, as opposed to just numbers, is really effective at communicating the seriousness of the current epidemic. -- The Anome (talk) 12:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

These will be very helpful. Well done. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry the wording is a little confusing. Is it possible to put the world totals on a separate scale? Kactusotp (talk) 05:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I do not understand exactly what you mean by separate scale. Could you please explain with more details. And you are right, confusion is not good, and before it confuses, I would rather remove the Totals line. Maybe I just rename Total with World? --Malanoqa (talk) 06:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

While other lines do a good job of indicating seriousness for each country, totals line does a good job of showing seriousness to entire world.89.235.242.130 (talk) 19:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear Kactusotp, I now renamed Totals with World on the logarithmic diagramm. On the linear one I removed World (Total), Nigeria and Senegal, as the values are too small to be displayed. Is this now better? --Malanoqa (talk) 20:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

That does make it much more clear now, thank you for putting all this together. Kactusotp (talk) 00:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The use of "rate" seems confusing. Surely rate implies a per day (or other time interval) basis. I think what is meant is "proportion" and it would be clearer if they were amended as such.Mattojgb (talk) 09:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Dear Mattojgb, I am thinking about your remark. I found: "Incident proportion R, the number of people who experience an event in a closed group of susceptible people over the course of study. The incidence proportion is expressed R = A / N, where N is the number of people in the population and A is the number of people who experience the event. ... the inciden proportion is often called the attack rate (AR). ... The disease attack rate or incidence proportion is the proportion who develop diesease.

Further there is an article Attack rate, but also an article Cumulative incidence which is forwarded from Incidence proportion. I have also yet not seen other examples of that kind of graph, so I cannot take these as example. The WHO on the other hands uses bar graphs with new cases per week. Theses have the advantage, that they make also sense at the end of an epidemic. I added a definition for the rate in the graphs and will first upload the graphs with data from 28. September.

Any other proposals for the naming? Rate, Proportion, Attack rate, Cumulative incidence, what fits best? --Malanoqa (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

MalanoqaThat was helpful. Having read through your links and looking at related links, I think the correct term would be Prevalence or possibly prevalence proportion. Mattojgb (talk) 09:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Mattojgb That is really tough. I looked a bit on prevalence, but I have the impression, that this word suggest, that people can not be cured, like it is assumed for AIDS. See for instance . And I would be very unhappy if a rumor like that spreads for ... Maybe it is possible, to just give a proper definition for the values, and omitting words like rate in the graph completely? --Malanoqa (talk) 10:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

References

Medevacs

Talking about paring down the article, I think the section on medically evacuated cases is not relevant and it should be removed. Would anyone mind? Robertpedley (talk) 14:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Still relevant for history, so suggestion stub in into a sub article then remove...BrianGroen (talk) 16:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree, it can be removed. If someone wants to make a separate article, that's fine, too. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I will do a medivac article soon, but keep[ here till then. BrianGroen (talk) 18:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Brian, I see there's another medevac heading for the US today.Robertpedley (talk) 09:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

First USA case

[3] [4]. Too early to put in the article, but it's good to know. ClaudioUEC (talk) 21:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

should it go on the cases table?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Should the name of the article now be changed? 2014 Ebola Outbreak ? 96.30.147.255 (talk) 22:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

There's another unrelated 2014 outbreak, so the title of this still needs to specify. At present, I don't see that anything else would be better than the current title, since that's where it originated. Blackbird_4 22:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

No the article name shouldn't be changed. The outbreak is in West Africa; the case in the states is isolated... but I'm sure we'll see a big honkin' USA section within hours. Floydian ^τ _¢ 22:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

If is an outbreak with a case outside the west africa, despite being a "isolated case", is not a "west africa outbreak". ClaudioUEC (talk) 22:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe (now that U.S. is included) title should change.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It's a pandemic now not an epidemic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.64.8.37 (talk) 22:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Case ≠ outbreak. I'd rather see senegal removed than go all 'Murica over this single isolated case. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 22:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Floydian, this does not represent a U.S. outbreak. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Confirmed Liberia to USA transmission per CDC, please add the USA to the chart, timeline and header

http://www.wfaa.com/story/news/health/2014/09/29/dallas-presbyterian-hospital-ebola-patient-isolation/16460629/ <----- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neukenjezelf (talk • contribs) 22:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I can change the map, I've been working on the SVG for when this happened. AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 22:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I am preparing to change the chart with the rates on logarithmic scales.--Malanoqa (talk) 05:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

New Ebola outbreak map

I went ahead and published the map on the right.

Countries affected by the West Africa Ebola Outbreak

I think we should start using a world map as the virus continues to spread. Please make changes and re-upload when necessary. AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 22:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

If there is an Ebola virus outbreak in the U.S. the map should only cover the affected region/state(s), it should not show all of America including Alaska and Hawaii. The U.S. is one country made up of states. Only the affected states should show. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

So just so we can show the US, we're overriding the very informative existing map? No thanks. Please leave it as is until there is person-to-person transmission on US soil. Everyone knows where the US is, but many of these African countries have only entered peoples lexicon because of this outbreak. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 22:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, especially since any real outbreak on U.S. soil would not include the entire country. Just the local region, just as the West Africa outbreak does not include all of the African countries. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

SW3 5DL, I mean, Texas pretty much is an entirely different country, so I'll make the changes. Also, Floydian, we can easily add a zoomed in portion similar to what we had before. This is just a basic, needs-to-be-changed version I felt like discussing. AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 23:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but only if there should be an outbreak in Texas. Right now, there's no outbreak. This patient contracted the virus in Guinea, not Texas. Good job on the map, btw. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I think we either add Texas or we remove Senegal. AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 23:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Wait a bit. I don't like being the one to say this, but I don't know the Guinean's travel history or when he became symptomatic. We might need your map for Texas. Senegal can go in 21 days but only if it is absolutely confirmed that that case did not cause any other cases in Senegal. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, just be ready though. From the time the patient visited his physician in Texas until the time he was hospitalized, two days passed. AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 23:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, two days being symptomatic. That's the scary bit. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

If their is transmission in Texas than Texas should be added, not the entire USA IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I just updated the map. Please let me know what you guys think. AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 04:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Updated map with nicer projection and only Texas colored.

• The map should involve the united states as a country. The countries affected in west africa, didn't have the whole of their countries affected as well, but the countries are highlighted as a whole (not the states/regions). The case of United States shouldn't be different! I support the initial map should be added and the name of the article changed. According to WHO, even a case constitutes an outbreak. Then again, the US can't be left out of the map cos NOT everyone knows where it is located like someone stated.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 18:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Patient in Texas does not represent U.S. outbreak

The patient at Texas Presbyterian Hospital in Dallas acquired the virus in West Africa. He did not acquire it here. If any of his American contacts, such as airport security, or taxi drivers, or his neighbors, contract Ebola virus, then yes, that would represent an outbreak on U.S. soil. This case does not. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Does that mean we can remove the 1 case in Senegal? AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 22:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. It's the same situation in Senegal, if we don't pt US we should ddo the same with senegal. And it's not a outbreak in US, just a case of the outbreak in US, it's different. ClaudioUEC (talk) 22:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, so long as no other citizen of Senegal falls ill from contact with him. And right now, the Minister of Health is declaring Senegal disease free, so I would say, yes, Senegal should be removed and that patient should be listed as part of the Guinea outbreak. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Go ahead and put it up for a vote, I personally think they should stay. The WHO is reporting on Senegal in its previous reports just like it was for Nigeria and the other three countries. Why don't we wait and see what the WHO does with their reports and then follow their lead? AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 22:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Appeal to authority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.64.8.37 (talk) 22:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

We can wait for the WHO. I don't know if the Minister of Health in Senegal consulted with them before the announcement but he should have certainly informed them per their arrangements with WHO. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Senegal case = US case--65.8.188.148 (talk) 23:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Exceptthe Senegal case is in West Africa and fits on the map fine and dandy. I have no problem with mention of the US case, even including it in the "cases/casualties" section of the infobox... what I take issue with is using a completely uninformative map just to show America highlighted. It's not necessary, its distracting, and the pileup of American editors to defend its addition is fly-by editing at its worst. Wait for opinions from the numerous editors who have spent tireless hours on this article before sledgehammering something in. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 23:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

If it's a matter of visual appeal, maybe we could have the world map with an inset with the old map for West Africa. I might try to work on this. Universalstudent (talk) 02:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Floydian. Unless there is a true outbreak on U.S. soil, this patient, who seems to be from Liberia, where the epidemic is most severe, does not represent an Ebola outbreak in Texas. But do keep in mind that depending on his contacts, when he became symptomatic, etc., there may well be an outbreak there. There are many in the scientific community who believe it is only a matter of time. The U.S. has open borders. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I thought every opinion in Wikipedia matters , not a select few, I guess im wrong--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Every opinion does matter, but keep in mind these two points: 1) a select group of editors has built and maintained this article, established its structure and coverage, and kept it sourced and tidy for nearly a year now. Their opinions on how to go about dealing with this new development are integral to this article, as they will likely continue to maintain it long after the sudden spike of American interest subsides. 2) Given this development, the number of American editors coming here with the sole intent of adding information regarding this American case means that a whole bunch of yesmen will arrive and agree with anything to establish that viewpoint, including the undue weight of adding it to the lede. This cannot be allowed to represent "consensus". - Floydian ^τ _¢ 23:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I fixed the indenting. Hope you two don't mind. I agree with Floydian. Wait and see. Wait for all the others to weigh in. This can wait until it's sorted. As of right now, it's been mentioned in the article as it should be. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree with SW3 5DL the case is a subsequent spread from west africa. AS it mentioned now keep it. Lets adopt await and see attitude . Yes it will classify this as a pandemic if more cases show up, and since he has been in the country for about 6 days before treatment its highly likely there will be more cases in the following days. Lets hope not.BrianGroen (talk) 05:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• According to WHO, a case constitutes an outbreak...as long as it isn't a regular disease common with a country. So a case of Ebola in US is an outbreak in the US.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Time to move the article?

With a confirmed case in America, I propose we move the title to 2014 Ebola virus epidemic. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

That's a good title. This may well develop into an outbreak in Texas, and possibly elsewhere if he was symptomatic on the plane. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

so can the title be changed, or is that off-limits too?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

In theory, yes, but not yet. SYSS Mouse (talk) 01:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

There have been previous cases in the US such as when they flew patients over. This case was NOT acquired in the US thus too early. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but those cases came into the U.S. via the CDC isolation plane. This fellow was part of the local Dallas population before he was admitted to hospital. He first sought care on the 26th but wasn't admitted until the 28th. That's two days of exposure when he was symptomatic. The possibility of an outbreak in Dallas is real in this case. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Ozzie10aaaa, wait on that title change. It's too early. As I said earlier, only if there is an outbreak. This person came from Liberia with the infection. He didn't acquire it on U.S. soil. But contacts he had here after he became symptomatic might develop it. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

And if that happens than their would be an outbreak in the USA. Until than no. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)]

Right, I think he gets that. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

We're ignoring that there already is another unrelated 2014 Ebola outbreak. Considering that we can't just use the title '2014 Ebola outbreak' as a result, then the current title is the most informative and most accurate title to use. Blackbird_4 05:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• I propose that each new editor not come and create a new section to request the same thing. I propose that we keep all discussion on the way we should augment the article with regards to the American case in a single section, to avoid confusing others who wish to join the discussion as well as to avoid fragmentation. Finally I propose that we stick with the current status quo: a mention of the case, how it happened, and current expectations, in a subsection as with other countries. No mention in the lede, no map adjustments. Infobox case addition, yes. My final addendum is that we sit on this until further news develops. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 02:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to combine all the sections using sub sections. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't have an objection to mention in the lede. In fact, the lede could clarify that this was not acquired on U.S. soil. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The virus was diagnosed outside of Africa though making it the first such case. [5]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure it is the first case found in the US. For their to be an outbreak in the US it must be acquired their. This is what we have been using for other countries. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, per Jmh649/Doc James. Just because it was diagnosed outside Africa does not make it America's first case. The question is where was the virus acquired, not diagnosed. This patient is from Liberia and he acquired the virus there. If his contacts in America become infected, then that does represent an outbreak in America. But not until then. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed no move yet. Keep the status quo as is now. Adopt a wait and see approach and hope for the best and not the worst. BrianGroen (talk) 05:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

My input into this is that we should be as neutral as possible, and follow sources. So we should not make the US a special case just because most editors are from there, but equally we should not exclude it for that reason either. There does seem to be a strong case for treating it identically to Senegal, because the two "outbreaks" are indeed identical in nature. Just because Senegal is in West Africa does not change that basic fact.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• I support the move, since the article is no longer limited to West Africa. According to WHO; an outbreak is the occurrence of a disease in a country where it isn't a normal occurrence. Therefore, even a single case constitutes an outbreak. Wikipedia needs to end this double standards.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 18:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

USA in Table

I agree that the US cases should be included in the table, but I think that September 21 is too early to list the case, as we have no reason to believe that he was sick until September 26. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.59.122.15 (talk) 03:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

AS the table has been set up for us, lets leave it there now. one minor date error for now won't effect the article negatively.- will update on next report ..BrianGroen (talk) 05:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

just a bit of eloboration. it takes time to change the table. reverting it back today only too ad it back in na day or so seems pointless unnecessary edits. I have added a note about date difference..BrianGroen (talk) 05:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Note to all new editors. Timeline went to a dispute resolution. please do not change because "WHO has one set of numbers". We reached a consensus that WHO figures are not factually correct and compare with respective government numbers from where WHO gets their numbers or OCHA or UNDP. Kindly stick to this to avoid a edit war again. Greetings Brian BrianGroen (talk) 05:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion or Exclusion of United States in article titled "... epidemic in West Africa"

I see somebody added the United States to the table after the confirmed case in Dallas. The title of this article is "Ebola virus epidemic in west Africa". It would seem to me that the inclusion of the United States would be outside the scope of an article with that title. I'm not going to make the edit before we discuss it. I would like to suggest that either the U.S. be removed from that table, or that the article title be broadened now that the virus has left West Africa. 204.14.152.134 (talk) 16:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Is this for real? The outbreak has spread to the US. Maybe, MAYBE, the name of the article should be changed, but part of the outbreak should not be ignored in an article about the outbreak just because you want to be hype-literal about the name.

Nobody suggested ignoring it. I put it in talk, rather than making the change, so that the best route could be decided without an edit war. 204.14.152.134 (talk) 17:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Fully aware of this fact. But the spread was from west Africa and yes the person who did it acted hastily but it is a time consuming edit. US is in this article. Suggest leave for now and see where this head. If not we will revert. Been discussed . Article title might change. At ip editor please add the new section on the end and not the front.. BrianGroen (talk) 22:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Article rename suggestions (for the likely near-future)

A couple weeks ago, I attempted to move/rename this article to 2014 Ebola Pandemic (the move was reverted by others of a wait-and-see outlook). In the event the disease does become established on another continent, I submit that such is the ideal title (rather than one containing "Epidemic" instead). Discuss....--Froglich (talk) 06:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Froglich i look into the actual dif. between epidemic and pandemic.

Simply put, when an epidemic gets out of hand, it is called a pandemic. This has 2 nuances:

Geographical spread

An epidemic that is not localized to a city or a small region but spans a larger geographical area can be called a pandemic.

Incidence rate

An epidemic may be localized to a small region but the number of people affected may be very, very large compared to what is "expected". In this case, it can be called a pandemic even if its geographical spread is not very large. For example, let us say that a disease has an "expected" rate of infection of 15%. When 40% of the population of a state is infected, we have an epidemic on our hands. When 75% of the population is infected, it has reached pandemic proportions.

IMO opinion we are looking at a pandemic given the past history of past 4 decades of Ebola outbreaks we have never before seen these numbers so this has the earmark of a pandemic. Just my input . . Others may differ.BrianGroen (talk) 13:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Is WHO calling it a pandemic? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I would wait. If WHO calls it a pandemic, then so should WP, but not until then. Also, keep in mind that even if there is an outbreak in Texas, that doesn't automatically represent a pandemic. The Americans will contain it. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The disease is definitely "out of hand".--Froglich (talk) 21:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ebola-virus-outbreak/texas-ebola-patient-had-contact-school-age-kids-perry-says-n215976,,, http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/10/01/texas-ebola-patient/16525649/,, very "out of hand"--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

i will stick to talk.. did a little further research until WHO declares pandemic keep current status qou.My mind says pandemic but WHO say epidemic...BrianGroen (talk) 04:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I remember that during the swine flu, the WHO said that there needed to be significant local transmission on 4 continents or something like that to declare a pandemic (which eventually happened in 2009). That might just be for flu, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.59.122.15 (talk) 23:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/) says this about flu as it pertains to a pandemic, “...influenza virus gains the ability for efficient and sustained human-to-human transmission and then spreads globally.” I'll wait for the CDC or WHO to official establish this as a pandemic event. One case out of Africa to the United States does not make this pandemic. Greg Glover (talk) 12:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The Independent now calling it a pandemic

Link.--Froglich (talk) 02:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Froglich, The Independent is not a medical website. I want to wait and see what the WHO, CDC, MSF, etc. say about it. AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 03:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

MERS is up to 22 countries and is simply referred to as an "outbreak" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mers_outbreak Donners (talk) 06:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

80 contacts

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/ebola-patients-texas-contacts-zoom-80-authorities/story?id=25912405,,, --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:00, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

As many as 100: http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/02/health/ebola-us/index.html – Epicgenius (talk) 14:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The Nigerian doctor in Port Harcourt had 400 contacts, and didn't infect any. Don't read too much into that just yet. Donners (talk) 06:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Propose Move

I feel this article should be moved to "2014 Ebola virus epidemic" since the outbreak has now passed the West African region.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 15:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Please see above discussion. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 16:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• I can't find any discussions about this particular rename.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

We need high quality refs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

See the subsection Talk:Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa#First USA case - Floydian ^τ _¢ 18:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

hypothetically

if any of the 100 or so individuals currently being monitored in or around Dallas, or for that matter some other case (ie Howard in D.C ,,http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Patient-With-Ebola-Like-Symptoms-Being-Treated-at-Howard-University-Hospital-278025181.html,, ) should pop up,,,could we then proceed to change both article title and map to reflect the reach of the outbreak at the international level.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

If we change the title to pandemic, I fear we would be the first to change the name of the epidemic. I would wait, till another word becomes common. Regarding the maps, I think people plan an inset or so. But I would not, just because of two US case, switch to a world map.--Malanoqa (talk) 23:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Nigeria move

. I reverted this move and deletion. The spread started here and needs to remain here. It can be trimmed but not moved. A spin of article has been created but it is still an part of this article. BrianGroen (talk) 06:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Each country section within this article should contain initial outbreak info, patient 0 details and only the latest stats. any day to day changes or gov, medical press releases should be placed on an individual page.. IE, overview in here, Detailed info on dedicated article/page.. The only country detail worth keeping here is the bi weekly case/death stats table that is a proper overview of the epidemic... this article is starting to get get way over sized... Gremlinsa (talk) 08:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Gremlinsa. This article here should just be an overview and have the weekly case/death stats. Each country article should be more in-depth. They are separate sovereign nations, after all, and details of how they've coped, how the infection spread, belongs in an individual country article, not here. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Recent splits

I have serious concerns about the splits that have been done is the last few days. They were done without any discussion and IMO, for the most part, they do not represent what should be an acceptable level of accuracy and skillful writing for such an intensely viewed Wikipedia subject. They are not uniform in what and how information is presented. For example, the Guinea article has an in-depth section of information about the virus. It has a transmission section that included unsourced information such as Ebola virus has not been shown to be airborne among humans, but it can be transmitted through aerosolization of body fluids, such as when an infected individual sneezes, vomits, or flushes a toilet after use", which I deleted since right now we must be certain to get at least that right. The transmission section has a study on virus transfer between pigs and monkeys, etc.

If it had been up to me I would have deleted these splits and insisted on a consensus-first policy for the article. I've been here since 2006 and have worked on several current, fast-moving articles that eventually were split and I've never seen anything like this. We now have a whole series of articles that are not, IMO, up to snuff, all needing work. I'm sorry if this comes across like a rant, but WP is about working together rather than a decision made by one or two editors. Gandydancer (talk) 13:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

There had been some discussion about separate articles. In fact, you yourself have asked another editor to split off the 'responses' section. As for the separate country articles, each individual country is not well represented here at all. They are given short summaries. This means separate articles are needed. This is too big to contain in one article. As for the quality and content of these new articles, eventually they will all be consistent. They've just been created. It takes time. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

just my two cents(A SA saying for input). yes we need spin off as doc james and some other experienced authors suggested where the stub from here can be expanded. but this morning Nigeria was completely removed and just copied over. Yes it is advisable to create more expanded article, but to just point blank delete and only the content over is not per wiki rules. If it is going to be a straight forward copy without expansion the article will be marked for speedy deletion. I did friendly advise the editor there since he is new. Liberia was up for deletion exactly for that reason, but the editor subsequently expanded, although the quality of edit needs serious work on it. But if you create a new article the main still stays here until a consensus is reach to delete if needed. This is wikis rules. ask for deletion or reduction once the new article is up to standard. BrianGroen (talk) 16:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@5DL. Yes, please note that regarding the proposed Response section split there had been discussion and no editor offered any disagreements and then we asked Jytdog to go ahead with it. Sorry for shouting, but that's the way it's supposed to work in these parts: You offer a suggestion, it is discussed, and then you go ahead with it once group approval has been given. Both you and the other editor just went right ahead without discussion and created splits. Gandydancer (talk) 16:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Splitting#How to properly split an article Art LaPella (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Gandydancer sure seemed on-board. Here are two of his comments.

. . .We are now left with the individual country sections and I'm about ready to agree to separate articles for them. It seems to me that as the epidemic has grown from an "outbreak" to an epidemic, with even a few suggestions of "pandemic" being dropped here and there, the news such as xxx country had this or that happen within it's borders is less important than the overall effort to confront the ever-spreading disease. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 11:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

(Sounded to me like he was happy to see the articles spin off.)

Well, another maverick split - two down and two to go... I think that we should wait to remove our individual coverage of the affected countries until the new articles are cleaned up. What do other editors think? Gandydancer (talk) 15:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

(This sounded like he was happy to see them go and was anxious for the rest to follow.)

SW3 5DL (talk) 19:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you should have looked up the word maverick in the dictionary [6] (and taken special note of the synonyms) before you decided that I must have been "happy". At any rate, we can only hope that this does not happen again in the future, and move forward by beginning to do the much-needed work on the new splits. Gandydancer (talk) 11:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Gah. Yes issues. Efforts to repeat the signs and symptoms of Ebola as well as mechanisms of transmission of Ebola in each are occurring.

Should probably be re merged here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I've just looked at all the articles and they don't all say the same thing. Do you have diffs? SW3 5DL (talk) 03:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Propose we re merge these article

All this content 2014 Ebola virus outbreak in Nigeria is here. We appear to be duplicating content for the sack of duplicating. Others of these newly created articles include:

• 2014 Ebola virus epidemic in Guinea
• 2014 Ebola virus epidemic in Liberia
• 2014 Ebola virus epidemic in Sierra Leone
• 2014 Ebola virus case in the United States

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• YUCK. Strong Support this article is NOT that large. There is no reason to start creating content forks that repeat the same things over and over again and force users to sift through drivel to find the simple facts they seek. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 04:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Clean up : the article is quite large at the moment, and only going to get bigger. while much is duplicated, this needs to be cleaned up, (1)Put ALL relevant info for each of the regions in their own page, so that they are no longer regarded "stubs". (2)Brief explination and link to relevant pages in this one.. (Much like the DRC section).. There is WAY TOO Much to take in on this one page.. (3)these section also need trimming : Virology, Transmission, Prevention, Contact tracing, Travel restrictions and quarantines, Healthcare settings, Treatment, Level of care & Experimental treatments. Most of these are almost WORD 4 WORD from other relevant pages. You cant have everything on one single page, it's just toooooooo much.... Gremlinsa (talk) 07:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support There is and will be a lot of repetition in the main article already, there's no need to then repeat it all again in separate articles. However, considering how long this could last, the current state is unsustainable... I assume certain overly-detailed parts will be trimmed as necessary. 2014 Ebola virus case in the United States and others like it will be overwritten if they aren't deleted, as soon as there's a second case. Snd0 (talk) 08:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support and Clean-Up: All the above stubs are not necessary. I think sections 2-6 could be trimmed as they are covered at Ebola virus disease or Ebola virus.Greg Glover (talk) 13:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes agree with Greg section 2-6 could be trimmed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, You can't vote re-merge articles that were for the most part, not split off to start with. Also, the have grown to include more then what is one this page. Your using a re-direct to block access to new content. Starstr (talk) 13:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

  This appears to be attempts to simply duplicate content here across many other pages. If a split occurs, this is not the content that should be split. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

  For the most part they were started as independent, and have also grown. Unfortunately many have copied content back to this page, and some additional content here has also been moved. One of the problems is that this page is getting very large (see previous talk here) and it will only get worse as we get more content about each country. Its not a situation where merge-unmerge is valid, because there is new content on these pages. Starstr (talk) 14:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Firstly, this is an inappropriate forum. These articles are already created. The appropriate forum is AfD. Secondly, Doc James isn't showing any diffs that these new articles are duplicates. He appears to be engaged/creating a battleground by blanking and redirecting the new articles and trying to start edit wars on the U.S. article. Nobody is taking that bait. Floydian nom deleted the article on the U.S. That ended soon after with a speedy 'Keep.' The articles are already created. Coming along after the fact is battle behaviour and possibly WP:TEND. And taking an iVote here and not on the article talk pages doesn't make any sense. The content in the new articles wasn't here. In fact, Doc James is going on about having a transmission section on one of the new articles when this article didn't have one until I suggested it. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• These "new" articles were shoddily put together such that the picture on the Guinea page refers to Liberia in the caption. [7]

  Check out [Nigeria all of it word for word the same as [8]. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

One of the problems here is were talking about several articles, and the Nigeria article was indeed a split. That is why I said "..For the most part.." in my comment. That was split off because people were saying this page was too large, and its probably better to handle the Nigeria page separately. Starstr (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Starstr. This article can be put back with fresh content that does not duplicate anything here. In any event, this is still an inappropriate forum for this discussion. A handful of editors on this article cannot decide AfD issues that belong to the wider community. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. I forgot that. Pot meet kettle. In any event, this article should be an overview and not attempt to provide in depth coverage on 6 countries. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

No problem and thanks. Your previous comments are like a voice of reason. Starstr (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Strong support These articles were added without any discussion what so ever. Other than the Nigeria article, they do not meet WP's standards for accuracy and IMO they do not meet any standard for what is appropriate for what should be included in an article which is supposedly about a particular country's epidemic coverage. The reason that the Nigeria article actually meets acceptable standards is that it was copied from this article in which multiple editors have worked for several weeks to present accurate and appropriate information.

For some time editors of this article have been aware that the length is excessive and some measures needed to be taken. Through group consensus it was decided to move the Responses section to a new page, and that will hopefully be completed today. If the group decides on a "countries" split as well, I would suggest that all of the countries be placed in the same split article for now. In an article on a subject that is so newsworthy, it is common for editors that are not at all familiar with WP guidelines to add information that is not appropriate, and it takes the established editors many hours a day to continually go through the article sifting through the new edits. We just do not have enough editors with the time to place seven articles on their daily watch list to check for errors, etc.

Keeping in mind that an eventual "country" split would take place, some of the present editors have assumed that the present introduction that includes an overall history of the West Africa outbreak would remain, while the individual coverage sections would constitute the split article or articles. Gandydancer (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Support was up for the split in the beginning but in quite honesty the articles are of very poor quality at best. In civility i suggested to one editor who did a reasonable article to work on his wording etc, but was ignored. One article has about five maps each with different areas on each. This could be on one map. Quite frankly they are not up to scratch. References are poorly sited. There are a lot of other issues but in civility i will refrain from mentioning them. Personally i don't want this good article to be link to those. Seriously to the editors do some homework before nominating it for a spin off. I might take a fallout on my opinion here, but even me with my bad English i can do better than that. The split will com but sandbox the article align it properly then nominate for spin off. Quite frankly i will support a WK:AFD if it comes to it now. BrianGroen (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your frankness Brian. In all honesty, I was ready to leave the article this morning as I was not willing to have my Wikipedia name connected to such poor articles, so I was ever so happy to see them no longer linked to. I think for me the statement in one article saying that "casual contact" would not spread the disease was the clincher. Many thanks to those that have come out strongly against these articles until they meet our WP standards. Gandydancer (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• I think it's safe to say that consensus is emerging. I'd say give this another 24 hours, and unless a strong argument is raised, then go about merging any useful new content into this article, and redirecting those articles to the appropriate subsections of this article. With the responses section split, I think everything should fit in place nicely. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 13:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Support mainly because these articles are all from the same original article, I don't think there's a need for there to be multiple of them when they can all be covered in one page. AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 20:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose any action to claim this is consensus until this question has been resolved by this RfC: here. The editors did NOT oppose the creation of these articles before they were created. It was only AFTER the fact. Therefore, this issue should best be decided by the wider community. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

You have already opposed once and no this is not how it works. There is clear consensus here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Fixed the oppose. Didn't mean to have two. I was responding to Floydian's claim that it was emerging consensus. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Support, there is no reason to create separate articles. There is a growing trend in WP to create more article than needed. This crates redundancy and it is not functional to the objectives of the projects. Would you find separate articles in the Britannica? Well, you know the answer. Silvio1973 (talk) 17:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose unless the rest of the article is summed up and shortened substantially. It is already very verbose and some sections like the Timeline show numerous redundant graphs that don't add much value. Others like Virology, Transmission, etc sections are mostly repeats of what is already said in the main EVD page. MrPhelps (talk) 20:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

The primary discussion here is what should this article contain? IMO it should be about the outbreak of Ebola that started in West Africa. Thus one would discuss the outbreak and the countries that it affects plus organizations responses and economic effects.

There should be one section on "background" that gives a very BRIEF overview of virology / transmission, prevention and treatment concentrating on how they related to this outbreak. These should otherwise be dealt with in other articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate forum. The articles are created. They do not duplicate content. They are not forks. Stop blanking them and redirecting them. That's disruptive to the project. If you think they should be deleted go to the appropriate forum. The AfD board is the appropriate venue for this, not this talk page. It is inappropriate to attempt to delete these articles on this talk page. This is an issue for the wider community. The AfD on the U.S. article was closed as "Keep." Why aren't you nominating the new articles for deletion instead of attempting to do it here? SW3 5DL (talk) 14:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with SW3. Thanks Starstr (talk) 15:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

No, this is a conent dispute and doesn't belong anywhere else. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and the discussion can happen anywhere. I will open up an RfC if necessary. The argument that these forks contain new content that is being "blocked" is a fallacious straw man; the content, if it isn't unnecessary coverage, overuse of quotations or news broadcasting, could easily be incorporated into this article. It is rediculous that a single case of Ebola in a country warrants an article, that is WP:NOTNEWS at its finest. As mentioned, a content dispute doesn't belong at AfD per the conditions of AfD regarding redirects, and such content can certainly be discussed back into the parent article. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 15:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

How is it a content dispute? Where are the diffs of disputed content? The Nigeria article content was copied from that article and put here! These are new articles and any decision to delete should be placed at AfD. Especially, given that the AfD you started was closed as Keep after a few hours. This article here should focus on being a good summary of things, it should not attempt to be in-depth as that is simply not possible in an epidemic crossing borders into 6 countries. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

SW3 5DL said:The Nigeria article content was copied from that article and put here! That is not correct. Please check back to before the content was moved to a new article. Gandydancer (talk) 17:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Here are the diffs of the disputed content.[9][10][11][12][13] There are better delineations that we can split this article by, and there are many places to trim out excessive trivial details and summarize information into a format that is more easily digested by the many readers of this article. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 16:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

One reason we have splits is some people are saying things like ".. thus cutting the length of this article as is urgently needed.." Others are moving content back here and making redirects, and this seems to be where the problem is coming from. Starstr (talk) 17:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Floydian, If you feel the articles should not exist, then follow policy and go to AfD and let the community decide. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

What policy? Plus WP:AFD says right at the top to consider an alternatives "For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately." - Floydian ^τ _¢ 18:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Keeping content on the outbreak mostly here

Wondering what peoples thought are on [14] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean, remove outbreak information from the EVD article and only have it here or in a country article? SW3 5DL (talk) 23:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

We want an overview their. We should however keep it brief. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

looks good,sure,why not--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I did a little work on the 2014 section to update it. See what you think... Gandydancer (talk) 01:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@ Doc James First time on US soil definite needed addition. Short brief and to the point. BrianGroen (talk) 21:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Glad we agree. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for new chapter - Search for new strategies

I would like to insert a new chapter in 5 Treatment after 5.1 Level of Care. I read mostly about common techniques to isolate patients in special high security treatment facilities. At the end of the chapter Level of Care, the reader is told, that there are thousands of hospital beds missing. I would then like to know, what actions are done to solve this problem. And a natural question is What shall I do, if my hospital does not accept the person I care for?

I propose therefore to add the following chapter:

Search for new strategies

Measures are done to provide support for families that are forced to care for patients at home. An organization send with other supplies, also caregiver kits intended for interim home-based interventions, in cases where infected community members cannot go to an Ebola Treatment Unit or a Community Care Center. These kits include protective clothing, hydration items, medicines, and disinfectant, among other items. It is discussed, whether usual hospitals are no good place to care for Ebola patients as the risk to spread the infections is to high there. Patients should be isolated, so that they cannot spread the infection. The WHO and non profit partners launch a program in Liberia to move infected people out of their homes into Ad Hoc Centers that will provide rudimentary care.

To care for Ebola patients at home is still not advised, but an option following WHO. If home care is choosen, the WHO advises to inform local public health authority and to receive appropiate training and equipment.

References

Any comments? Is this the right wikipedia article? Are there other articles where this fits better? Is the quality of the text OK, at least for adding it? --Malanoqa (talk) 12:35, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

as long as its sourced and its not original research, its fine--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Not to throw a monkey wrench into your edits. But what you are proposing is found here in the Ebola virus disease article. Why do we need it repeated in the this article?

Dear Greg Glover, the proposed content is not in the Ebola virus disease article, although Ebola virus disease and this article contain otherwise similar information regarding treatment of Ebola. The chapter I propose describes actions discussed or done to handle this epidemic, which differs substantially from previous Ebola epidemics. If you disagree, please explain in more detail, which content would in your opinion be duplicated.--Malanoqa (talk) 14:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Well I think this article should be specific to the outbreak. Treatment should be put in the Ebola virus diseases (EVD) article. From above, I support trimming sections 2-6. I'm not saying not to do the work or opposed to the content. I'm just more amicable that it being placed over in the EVD article. Greg Glover (talk) 19:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I very strongly support adding this information. It is appropriate for this article (rather than the EVD article) because it is a plan to improve care for people who are getting no care at all because the few hospitals that remain open have no available beds left. Furthermore, an unknown number of people are dying because their treatment needs for diseases other than Ebola are not being met, and with hospitals full of Ebola patients, what with such lack of the ability to prevent hospital-acquired infections, they are not unlikely to pick up the virus during their hospital stay. And all this is only going to get worse. Gandydancer (talk) 15:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• I disagree. The explanation of treatment or lack of treatment, care or lack of care within the context of an outbreak is all the same thing. I think the word “treatment” is being confused with the word “resources”. Because medical treatment is lacking is not reason to reproduce a treatment section found in numerous places here at Wikipedia. Remember, the treatment of EVD is a global standard recognized by Wikipedia and WHO or the CDC is generally the authority. Greg Glover (talk) 20:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Dear Greg Glover, you say the information of the proposed chapter can be found in numerous places in Wikipedia. I failed to find it, please cite the exact places, where this information can be found.--Malanoqa (talk) 21:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I now inserted the chapter into the main article. There where yet no statements, that the proposed chapter contains substantial errors. But it was supposed, that this information should rather be put into the Ebola virus disease article, to prevent duplication. But the articles regarding prevention and treatment are longer in this article, than in Ebola virus disease, so it there is a lot of cleaning still to be done. --Malanoqa (talk) 07:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

MalanoqaI think you have categorised this poorly. "Search for new strategies" is not a subject directly related to the epidemic, and your material doesn't really support the "search" title. You have added new material which is useful - the Samaritan's Purse contributions and the introduction of community care under WHO guidance. Both of these belong in the appropriate part of the "Responses" new page. Community care also deserves a mention under "Healthcare settings" Robertpedley (talk) 10:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Robertpedley I understand the new "Responses" article as a list, of all institutions, countries, people who support. This chapter does not fit into this. It is not answering the question, "Who helps?", but "What can I do for a patient, if hospitals are closed and ambulance cars are not coming?" And as that, it is strongly related to prevention and to treatment, which are not part of the "Responses" article.--Malanoqa (talk) 10:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Robert, I just can't see how Responses would be the right section, but I think that your suggestion "Healthcare settings" would be excellent. Malanoga, since your first language is not English, the wording does need some work (as you suggested it would). If Robert agrees with a new placement, would it be OK with you if we fix the wording a little and move it? Gandydancer (talk) 10:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Gandydancer Do you mean integrating the content into the chapter "Healthcare settings", or integrating only part of it and moving and renaming the proposed chapter? For me it is OK, if you do it.--Malanoqa (talk) 11:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Gandy - Happy with your proposal. In my mind the separate "responses" page should be charting the progress of the various agencies which are deploying equipment and personnel, more than just a list, so some of this material may be duplicated over there. Robertpedley (talk) 13:20, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Robert, after reading the refs I could well-see where you were coming from as well. :) But yes, all in all, considering that they better get going on alternate treatment settings over there, it is now well-placed. IMO Jytdog did the difficult job of setting this up quite well (with a few needed changes as we go along), and Healthcare settings is a good place for this and probably more to come in the next few weeks. Malanoga, I pretty much used your wording with a few changes which I assume had to do with translating the German way of using language to the English way. If you want anything changed, let me know. Gandydancer (talk) 14:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Gandydancer, thank you for improving the wording and doing the move. Thank you, for me it is OK. --Malanoqa (talk) 17:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

A warning for the new-comers

If you are interested in working on these articles, WATCH OUT!! There is some troublemakers here and if you run afoul of them its not pleasant!! (talk) 14:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe the reason is a different one. I think, keeping up with such a complex catastrophe like the current Ebola epidemic is difficult and time consuming. At least, that is the impression I have when I make only slight edits in an article or comments on the talk page. I work hours, just to change the article a bit, or not at all. I think most of us do not only work for wikipedia; family, work, ... all want something from us. And personally, I am happy to see my comments thoroughly thought over and improved, my errors corrected. But we are all humans, and keeping a calm discussion, focused on the content, can sometimes be difficult. Especially if we work together with people we never met, and know nearto nothing from. And outside of our home, people are suffering. With kind regards, --Malanoqa (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

This section is completely inappropriate. This is a talk page for discussing the way we present our information in this article, not for maligning other editors you disagree with. Attack the arguments, not the arguer. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 15:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

He's a newbie. I think he's referring to the problems associated with the ownership of this article by one or two editors. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

@Starstr this is totally uncalled for and in very poor taste. Regardless of the ownership ongoing issue it is totally unappropriated. BrianGroen (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Response section split

I have placed an overview of the section to prepare for a split. Please review and edit if needed. Hopefully we can get the split done today, thus cutting the length of this article as is urgently needed. Gandydancer (talk) 15:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I oppose that move. The content in that section should be moved off to the individual country articles. A separate 'responses' article doesn't make sense any longer now that we've got individual country articles. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully we will not have "individual country articles" for long. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I support that move. I do not see, how the content from responses can be easily moved to the individual country articles without in most cases multiplicating it. Most responses are addressing the epidemic as a whole not the specific country. --Malanoqa (talk) 15:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Then maybe it should stay here, since this article would best be used as an overview of the epidemic? SW3 5DL (talk) 16:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support. The responses section goes into a lot of unnecessary detail but is worthy enough of a separate established article. I don't mind two articles, much more succinct than 6 or 7. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 16:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support it being its own article. Maybe Responses to the 2014 Ebola epidemic. Definitely should not be moved to each country specific article which need to be re merged here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment This split received group approval several days ago in a previous discussion and there were no editors that voiced opposition at that time. Gandydancer (talk) 16:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done (except for the recommended templates). Art LaPella (talk) 19:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I wasn't aware of SW3 5DL's objection until I was finished. Art LaPella (talk) 19:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

S/he did not object during the discussion - he only objected right now. Gandydancer (talk) 20:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

GAndydancer, please do not use, "S/he" when referring to me. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

@Art LaPella very good split. In fact excellent way of doing it..Regards Brian BrianGroen (talk) 20:43, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Art LaPella (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Art LaPella, No problem, I didn't mind. Good job, btw. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Nigerian deaths

Should we mention this in this article? If not, is there a place we can include this: Starstr (talk) 17:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC) 2 Nigerians died and more than 20 were hospitalized when they drank too much salt water after hearing about a hoax cure that it would be a protection from Ebola; the hoax started in August 2014.["Nigerian Ebola Hoax Results in Two Deaths". National Geographic. Retrieved 30 September 2014.]["Nigerian Ebola Hoax Results in Two Deaths". ABC News. Retrieved 3 October 2014.]

I think it is relevant, but I do not know exactly where to place it. I would also like to have a second independent reference given for this. By the way, the first link you gave points to another article, and is not related to your statement.--Malanoqa (talk) 23:43, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I do not think that it should be included in the Nigeria article, and I've deleted it several times in the past. Even if two Nigerians actually died from drinking salt water after they saw it on a twitter, which I am not ready to believe until it is better sourced, it is not nearly significant enough for an article which packs their entire episode of the outbreak into just a few paragraphs. If anything, their article needs to be updated with the praise they have received for stopping the transmission so rapidly rather than an old news item about drinking salt water. Gandydancer (talk) 09:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Immune ebola survivors become ebola nurses?

Did this idea ever take off? It would be great to see it referred to in the treatments section if it did. Maybe the Liberians could export their survivors to earn very high pay!

http://news.sciencemag.org/africa/2014/10/ebola-survivor-i-senga-omeonga-every-day-i-m-still-thinking-when-was-i-contaminated

"Q: What do you think of the idea of having people who recovered from Ebola help with caring for patients? A: Today we talked to the doctor in charge of ELWA 2, about this idea because there’s an acute shortage of staff. It doesn’t need to be health care workers. Non–health care workers can be trained, and those who recovered can be very helpful as patient assistants. They can give food and water and help the patient. The idea was welcomed but he needed to discuss this with health ministry and see if it’s willing to sponsor that kind of program and hire these people."

Here in Wikipedia I would not formulate it that enthusiastic, and "...to export their survivors to earn very high pay!", is a personal opinion you might say on the talk pages, but not in the article. But apart from that, caring Ebola patients by survivors might became important, and I would endorse citing good references for this (Please do not forget to click on the button to enter signature and timestamp).--Malanoqa (talk) 22:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Obviously great if it happens. I've been watching for this for a while, but it's not happening ... I wonder if there are ethical issues? (what if ebola immunity is like the common cold, it doesn't last long?). I think William Pooley (UK nurse, recovered) has expressed a desire to return. Robertpedley (talk) 17:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

We have the above quote from Doctor Senga Omeonga, who is also an ebola survivor himself, this should surely be somewhere in Wikipedia. Not sure exactly where it should go though.

Sierra Leone death rate is much lower.

Does anyone have any information about the death rate being much lower in Sierra Leone than the other two main countries infected? Just look at the numbers at the bottom of the article. It seems very unusual. Hammerfrog (talk) 16:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Hammerfrog that's come up several times under Talk. The answer seems to be that, the SL government is only reporting deaths of lab-confirmed EVD cases - and they don't have enough resources to keep up. WHO is constantly warning of under-reporting.Robertpedley (talk) 17:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

@Hammerfrog firstly interesting nickname.. ok issue regarding Sierra leone, yes they only report confirmed cases as deaths. in essence they under count the death by about a thousand short according to Sylvia Blyden the president executive assistant. but it was reported in her news paper she owns and not officially so can't actually add it.. but the numbers will change again as soon as i have all the respective gov's reports as i have been doing in the past.. SL already not correct as per report .. Kind Regards Brian BrianGroen (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

WHO coordination and strategy

Hi guys, I've extracted the outline below from WHO Strategic Action Plan for Ebola Outbreak Response. All of the agencies - e.g. US government & military, MSF etc. - are supposedly following the plan and coordinating so that resources go where most needed. My question - does this table belong on this page, or in the separate "Responses" page? Robertpedley (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

A. Immediate actions to support the three EVD affected countries 1 Urgently strengthen the field response Output 1: A local response team is in place in each “hot spot” Output 2: Provision of field logistical support including Personal Protective Equipment supply and local laboratory facilities capacity Output 3: Provision of care to patients with effective infection prevention and control in health care settings Output 4: Chains of transmission broken through active surveillance, case investigation, contact tracing and follow-up Output 5: Public relations and reputation management, social mobilization, and risk communications strengthened 2. Coordinate the outbreak response 2.1. Manage the WHO Sub-regional Ebola Operations Coordination Centre Output 1: Field coordination, collaboration and operational management of the outbreak response strengthened Output 2: Cross-border coordination strengthened 2.2. WHO's leadership and coordination of EVD outbreak response strengthened at all levels Output 1: Logistics management systems strengthened to support response activities Output 2: Disease-related and other content-based expert support provided for risk assessment and expert networks mobilized Output 3: Global communication and information provided Output 4: External relations strengthened Output 5: Clinical support strengthened Output 6: Development of new medical treatments and interventions against EVD advanced B. Preparedness in countries at-risk Output 1: Preparedness plans activated and tested Output 2: Active surveillance strengthened Output 3: Laboratory diagnostic capacity strengthened Output 4: Public information and social mobilization enhanced Output 5: Case management and infection prevention and control capacities strengthened

Robertpedley (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Robertpedley IMO belong in responses...good job...BrianGroen (talk) 19:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Brian. Gandydancer (talk) 20:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Sierra Leone Updates

Updated numbers are continually available from the Sierra Leone government before they are reported by WHO. The link to the Sierra Leone health department is here: [15]. I understand there is a desire to wait to update the timeline so that it can be tabular, but there's no reason why the infobox at the top can't be updated immediately once new information is available from a WP:RS. 173.69.39.47 (talk) 18:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

It all being done with good intend, yes we can update daily but it is very time consuming and edits on maps tables etc..This was the outcome of a dispute resolution a while back so we stick to that consensuses. Regards BrianGroen (talk) 18:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I read and re-read the DRN discussion, which I've linked here for convenience: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_98#Talk:Ebola_virus_epidemic_in_West_Africa.23Semi-protected_edit_request_on_28_August_2014. I see no such consensus on timeliness, that discussion revolved around specific data points. I propose that WP:RS case/death totals be posted when available. Yes, this means that the map may be a few days out of date. That's fine, the map is separately dated. That means the table will be a few days out of date, but that's fine, the table is separately dated. This is an ongoing event, data will change rapidly as is becomes available. Wikipedia should have the most current reliable information available. The convenience of editors is not a reason to withhold publishing information 173.69.39.47 (talk) 19:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Err..."convenience of editors"...? Brian, you'd better ask for a pay raise :). Gandydancer (talk) 20:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

With full due respect to your proposal I fully understand your reasoning for this, but but it is more practical to keep in alignment. Going to be a bit confusing when we add certain totals in the info box, but the map don't correspond, or the table and adding every new release number as they come along to the timeline is again going to lengthen the article. And quite frankly cause unneeded edits and re edits.. etc. Not disputing WP:RS . The timeline is updated timelessly as it arrive and trust me it is a bit of nightmare. been doing it for a while now..BrianGroen (talk) 20:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I would propose that the table be eliminated, as it is just a collection of statistics per guidance in WPIN. While I agree that the graphs are useful in helping readers understand the chronology, the table IMO just serves to make the article lengthy. This would obviate the issue over table updates which are inaccurate anyways because the dates don't align exactly from country to country. And, with due respect noted to your extensive contributions, your arguments basically boil down to WP:IDL and WP:OWN. Stop blocking legitimate updates that we all agree are WP:RS and allow other editors to participate.. 173.69.39.47 (talk) 23:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Washing the dead

Could we have some detail on the question of who washes their dead? Is this a local religious practice coming out of the animist traditions? Is it Muslim? Is it a local Christian practice? It would seem to be kind of important to understand the details of what seems to be a significant transmission vector. TMLutas (talk) 18:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

that is in fact an interesting question, one gets so wrapped up in the "ebola news" , that one forgets so many important aspects that are related to this event, as the one you just mentioned--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ozzie10aaaa,TMLutas Its a standard Muslim tradition. see Islamic_funeral perhaps add the wikilink. it is in a article on wiki. But this mostly apply to Guinea and Sierra Leone . Muslim main religion there 70% plus. Liberia only has 12% Muslims. Greetings Brian BrianGroen (talk) 19:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is a world-wide tradition, including every nationality and every religion. Here in our "civilized" part of the world, it is done by strangers in the mortuary. Some mothers regret till the day they die that they were not allowed to hold their dead child. Gandydancer (talk) 19:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC

There is an RfC on whether or not to keep these new articles, here.

• 2014 Ebola virus epidemic in Guinea
• 2014 Ebola virus epidemic in Liberia
• 2014 Ebola virus epidemic in Sierra Leone
• 2014 Ebola virus case in the United States

SW3 5DL (talk) 21:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Link to Ebola Guinea Article

The 2014 Ebola virus epidemic in Guinea Article contains still less content than is presented here. I therefore removed the link (Main article: 2014 Ebola virus epidemic in Guinea). Gruznov inserted it again. But why directing the reader to an article that contains much less content (and especially no new content), then in this article?--Malanoqa (talk) 10:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

You can't expect the article to grow with the page blanking and efforts to stop it's development because a handful of editors want to control the entire topic. These are sovereign nations, not a conglomerate of states known as West Africa. This article here should be a good summary of the countries, while focusing on the larger situation. SW3 5DL (talk) 11:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

It appears to be difficult to add content for guinea, as the main language there is french. But I started to work on the 2014 Ebola virus epidemic in Guinea Article, so I now propose not to remove the link.--Malanoqa (talk) 17:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion as an Experimental Treatment

Hi, kind and gentle Wiki editors. THere's a debate about the inclusion if Lamivudine elsewhere on the talk page. Please can you you give your opinion as to what criteria we should apply in this article (which is about the epidemic in West Africa) for inclusion under the heading as an Experimental Treatment? Many thanks. Robertpedley (talk) 12:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Senegal (and Nigeria)

I moved Senegal to "Countries with an initial case or cases" as, as far as I can see, it is in a similar position to the USA - one imported case with no known onward transmission. (The USA is of course "no known onward transmission at the moment" as there at least one case where transmission is suspected.) It should not be in "Countries with former local transmission" as (a) as far as we know there was no local transmission and (b) it isn't "former" yet as the 42 day case-free period hasn't passed. Gandydancer reverted it with a comment that the 42 days haven't passed, so I don't understand why he moved it back to a former cases category.

I don't think Nigeria should be in "Countries with former local transmission" yet as the 42 day period hasn't passed there either.

So what is the rationale for Nigeria and Senegal being where they are? I would place Nigeria back in a "Countries with limited local transmission" category until the 20 October, and Senegal in "Countries with an initial case or cases" until the 14 Oct. Once those periods are completed they can go in a "countries with former outbreaks" category.Saxmund (talk) 12:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. I thought I was reverting to the long-standing placements but it seems that I missed a recent change... Sorry, and please revert back to the former placements. Gandydancer (talk) 14:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Change made. Saxmund (talk) 15:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Saudi case?

I see the Independent http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/ebola-virus-pandemic-should-be-treated-the-same-way-as-threat-posed-by-nuclear-weapons-security-officials-say-9771219.html is reporting a Saudi case and death. I haven't seen any further report of this, other than earlier in the epidemic when the Saudis had a suspected case that turned out not to be Ebola. Has anyone else got any information on this or is the Independent just wrong? Saxmund (talk) 13:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Saxmund about two months ago , but it was subsequently not a ebola case but as heart condition. Greetings BrianBrianGroen (talk) 17:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)